Get Busy NASA, We Need a Second Planet

It only seems appropriate to start with a word about the view out my office window in Hong Kong this morning, and that word is murk. As I was just discussing with a colleague visiting from New York, when you first encounter this kind of day in Hong Kong, you can convince yourself that you’re looking at fog that has rolled in over the harbor, but what you’re really looking at is some of the worst air pollution in the world, being belched out by buses, taxis, and the nearby factories in southern China every day, all day long.

Location is everything, and if you don’t live somewhere that looks like this on a regular basis, it can be hard to come to grips with some of the alarming findings that World Wildlife Fund (WWF) makes in their new 8th Living Planet Report, a report that measures the health of the biosphere against the humanity’s demands on it. It can be hard to come to grips with them even if when you’re staring at the murk every day.

The 2010 report finds that human demand on the biosphere – such as the amount of water we use, trees we cut down, and the space needed to absorb the amount of carbon we create – has doubled since 1961. More disturbingly, in 2007, our footprint managed to exceed the planet’s biocapacity by 50% in one year. In other words, we’re using resources like forest and water faster than they’re being generated, and according to WWF, if we carry on, we’ll need two Earths to meet our needs by 2030.

Given that’s not a likely option, what does such rampant overuse mean for the one planet we do have? Fish stocks are collapsing and the oceans, maxing out at their carbon absorption rates, are beginning to acidify. After tracking about 8000 populations of different species around the planet, WWF has found an average population decrease among them of about 30% between 1970 and 2007. Some populations’ numbers were up, like the Atlantic Sturgeon in the Albemarle Sound and the African Elephant in Uganda, while others were fading fast. Between 2000 and 2007, for instance, the white-rumped vulture population in Toawala, Pakistan, decreased by more than half. Things are particularly bleak in the tropics, where rapid industrial and agricultural development have encroached on habitats; as forest are cut down and river systems upset, species numbers have plummet. In temperate regions, losses were significantly less dramatic.

That difference has less to do with geography than economy. The report also looks at biodiversity loss by nations’ income, and the findings were stark: in high-income countries, that loss was about 5% between 1970 and 2007; for mid-income countries, 25%; and for low-income countries, 58%. Which means that the people who are worst affected by the degradation of natural resources are also the people who rely on them the most.

The report has a raft of suggestions about how to be more economical with the land on our little planet, including measures like increasing crop yield and restoring degraded forests. It recommends that global policy focus on these other areas too: bringing more focus on the environment, not just dollars, when looking at development goals, creating more protected areas, continuing to build up clean renewable energy resources, improving equitable access to energy and resources across the globe, and improving governance at international and nation levels over all of these measures. It’s a very tall order, but as my hazy view most days reminds me, it’s a very big problem – and not one we’re going to rectify on a second planet any time soon.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

    Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

    A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

    Victor Fraile / Getty Images

    By Sea, Land and Air: Hong Kong Inventor Leads Charge in War Against Pollution

    One Hong Kong engineer puts the city’s surf and turf to work toward a cleaner future

    Paul Souders

    Can Polar Bears Keep Their Heads Above Water in a Warming World?

    Polar bears are classified as marine mammals, like a seal or a walrus, which might come as a surprise given that they’re usually pictured on land. But polar bears spend a lot of their time in the waters of the Arctic, fishing or swimming among the sea ice. They may look awkward in the water, but no creature with paws is a better swimmer.

  • vasumurti

    “Get Busy NASA, We Need a Second Planet” ?

    Just Join PETA!

    Television producer Gene Roddenberry made space colonization part of the foreseeable future as the creator of “Star Trek.”

    In “Star Trek: the Next Generation”, he went a step further in depicting a future in which humans no longer kill other animals for food.

    A vegetarian future is as real a possibility as electric cars.

    “A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet,” writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983). “A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet.”

    I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism…which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

    A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today.

    According to a recent United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined.

    Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

    70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)

    Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

    It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

    Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

    The following points and facts are excerpted from Please Don’t Eat the Animals (2007) by the mother-daughter writing team of Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

    “A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What’s healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet.”

    —John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

    One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

    Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

    Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect.

    The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from nine million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

    “The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined.”

    —Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

    Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

    The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

    The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

    Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world’s land resources.

    Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

    The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don’t want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

    The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

    Thirty-three percent of our nation’s raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only two percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

    “It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat.”

    —Jeremy Rifkin, pro-life AND pro-animal author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, humans have lived on “vegetarian or near vegetarian diets,”; meat has traditionally been a luxury. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients that already suffered a heart attack.

    Providing the entire world with a meat-centered diet is absurd. But what about providing only the affluent with a meat-centered diet? According to author Keith Akers, if the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

    But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

    Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc…modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

    According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004:

    “The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future–deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease.”

    Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says in the February 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future (a peace and justice periodical on the relgious Left): “…the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging–to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer.”

    Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption–or enough to feed 60 million people.

    The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is challenging those who think they can still be “meat-eating environmentalists” to go veg, if they really care about the planet.

    peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world.

    peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.

    A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a 2 to 1 margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.

    “If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

    Whether or not space colonization is feasible or even desirable, is not the issue here. Veganism Is Direct Action in response to animal cruelty and the resultant self-inflicted wounds caused by killing animals by the billions — the energy, environmental, nutritional and population crises.

blog comments powered by Disqus